2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Thats thing about rights. You can ban most things if, say, 75% of the people won't mind, or want it that way. How many people would care if you banned witchcraft, or if you banned duck hunting, or techno music, nude photography. That's why we are supposed to have a government that protects minority against what the majority doesn't like. Otherwise we don't have rights at all, we just have an illusion of rights that is actually just a representation of mob rule.

Somehow I don't think poisoning others with second hand smoke is a fundamental right like listening to music in headphones inside your house

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Somehow I don't think poisoning others with second hand smoke is a fundamental right like listening to music in headphones inside your house

I don't even know how to respond, you won't consider the possibility that people can choose anything. Resteraunt, clubs, bars are all fashionable extravagancies. "Well kids have no choice because their friends are going out". "Well waitresses have no choice because there are no other jobs". "I have no choice because I like steaks at outback better than at applebees".

As if it should be the job of the government to protect me from my own ineptitude to determine where I get a fucking steak. Yes, I consider choosing to participate in legal activities in private establishments that allow it a fundamental right.

(btw, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and hate the smell of smoke)

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

i just said "don't care". not they are for banning smoking. they just don't care.

Wasn't trying to pick on you by quoting, but you just hit the nail on the head for something. Too many people vote for things that infringe on rights (not saying you did) because they "don't care" or it doesn't effect them negatively. Kinda like the, "well I have nothing to hide arguement" when the gov expands policing powers.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Wasn't trying to pick on you by quoting, but you just hit the nail on the head for something. Too many people vote for things that infringe on rights because they "don't care" or it doesn't effect them negatively. Kinda like the, "well I have nothing to hide arguement" when the gov expands policing powers.

i didn't vote on anything. i moved to mass after the ban was in effect. after i moved to mass from RI, then RI followed suit and banned it too.

i'm just saying i don't care, it's just nice now.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

i didn't vote on anything. i moved to mass after the ban was in effect. after i moved to mass from RI, then RI followed suit and banned it too.

i'm just saying i don't care, it's just nice now.

You caught me before I edited .

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You caught me before I edited .

kay. i'm just stating what happened. i never voted. I'm enjoying the end result immensely, but because I never "had" to vote on it, i never really sat down and thought about it. i mean it does suck for smokers, but more and more smokers are becoming minorities and with the raising prices of cigarettes (the last time i bought frequently, packs were like $2.50), health concerns and relative difficulty in finding a place to smoke in public, hopefully more people will quit.

but i don't know if it's too much big brother...

which brings me to another point, which i'll start a new thread about, can companies require employees to quit smoking?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't even know how to respond, you won't consider the possibility that people can choose anything. Resteraunt, clubs, bars are all fashionable extravagancies. "Well kids have no choice because their friends are going out". "Well waitresses have no choice because there are no other jobs". "I have no choice because I like steaks at outback better than at applebees".

As if it should be the job of the government to protect me from my own ineptitude to determine where I get a fucking steak. Yes, I consider choosing to participate in legal activities in private establishments that allow it a fundamental right.

(btw, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and hate the smell of smoke)

It's not the job of the government to have some agency make some regulation...but if the voters call up their representatives and demand change, and it's overwhelmingly popular, the VOTERS can put into action a change in policy

Suppose a state had its own intra-state railroad system, privately owned, but a common carrier...one of the most public businesses imagineable...now, they all got together and decided to allow smoking at every section of railroad

Now, people depend on the RRs for transportation...what choice do they have?

Have someone build a whole new set of rail road tracks that cover the entire state...costing how many millions, on a hope that people will want a new rail road system? If I'm an investor, I'll put my money in the dow, not on some wacky adventure that requires a huge investment and even if it worked, may not be profitable

Do we force anyone who relies on RR transportation to take a taxi or buy a car? Especially in areas where parking and taxis are out of the price range of the people?

Can the people come forward, with 99% of voters electing an anti-RR smoking party in the state house/senate and governors mansion, and call them all up and say we want smoking banned on RRs

Is that some tyrannical stealing of rights, or is that people exercising their rights at voters and citizens?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's not the job of the government to have some agency make some regulation...but if the voters call up their representatives and demand change, and it's overwhelmingly popular, the VOTERS can put into action a change in policy

Suppose a state had its own intra-state railroad system, privately owned, but a common carrier...one of the most public businesses imagineable...now, they all got together and decided to allow smoking at every section of railroad

Now, people depend on the RRs for transportation...what choice do they have?

Have someone build a whole new set of rail road tracks that cover the entire state...costing how many millions, on a hope that people will want a new rail road system? If I'm an investor, I'll put my money in the dow, not on some wacky adventure that requires a huge investment and even if it worked, may not be profitable

Do we force anyone who relies on RR transportation to take a taxi or buy a car? Especially in areas where parking and taxis are out of the price range of the people?

Can the people come forward, with 99% of voters electing an anti-RR smoking party in the state house/senate and governors mansion, and call them all up and say we want smoking banned on RRs

Is that some tyrannical stealing of rights, or is that people exercising their rights at voters and citizens?

Why speculate about some situation where business owners cackle and plot about how they will make their customers unhappy. Pretty much all mass transit used to allow smoking, and now largely restrict it, as a result of trying to please customers(airplanes for example).

But we keep coming back to this idea, 99%, 90%, 80% of the people supporting something. Is it your opinion that anything with an overwhelming majority cannot be a tyrannical stealing of rights?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's not the job of the government to have some agency make some regulation...but if the voters call up their representatives and demand change, and it's overwhelmingly popular, the VOTERS can put into action a change in policy

Suppose a state had its own intra-state railroad system, privately owned, but a common carrier...one of the most public businesses imagineable...now, they all got together and decided to allow smoking at every section of railroad

Now, people depend on the RRs for transportation...what choice do they have?

Have someone build a whole new set of rail road tracks that cover the entire state...costing how many millions, on a hope that people will want a new rail road system? If I'm an investor, I'll put my money in the dow, not on some wacky adventure that requires a huge investment and even if it worked, may not be profitable

Do we force anyone who relies on RR transportation to take a taxi or buy a car? Especially in areas where parking and taxis are out of the price range of the people?

Can the people come forward, with 99% of voters electing an anti-RR smoking party in the state house/senate and governors mansion, and call them all up and say we want smoking banned on RRs

Is that some tyrannical stealing of rights, or is that people exercising their rights at voters and citizens?

But no one is talking about FORCING people to be around smoke... however, some people are talking about FORCING people to NOT be around smoke.

It doesn't matter if 1000 people called into their representative to get a smoking ban passed, the representative should be smart enough to realize that such a thing would be infringing on the rights of others. And in the event they aren't smart enough to realize it, the courts should be smart enough to realize it.

If I were a representative and someone called me about a smoking ban, I would say "Did you try eating outside? Or perhaps speaking to the owner of wherever it was you were trying to eat? Or maybe just eat somewhere else?"

[Thorgrim]

You didn't answer my hypothetical

[Thorgrim]

Also, you still think it's a right to poison other people with second hand smoke, which I think is debateable...

People think healthcare is a right, you disagree, you think poisoning people with cancer is a right, I disagree

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You didn't answer my hypothetical

To answer a silly hypothetical. If companies are somehow forcing each other not to restrict smoking, then there should be an enforcement of anti-trust laws.

If it is supported with tax money, pass a law.

If all that doesn't work, I'd say shit outa luck, let it be known you would prefer to take your business to a transit system that provides smoke free environment.

What if I proposed a hypothetical whereby that said RR company decided to declare bankruptcy and close it's doors? What then for all the people who depend on it? Do those customers get to vote on whether the company gets to close?

Where is this requirement that John Doe the american citizen has to provide you with a good or service you want the way you want it?

[Ardentfrost]

I don't see second-hand smoking as poisoning at all. The whole thing is framed like the Christians with their anti-safe sex bullshit (you know, condoms can't prevent AIDS and they *often* fail to even prevent babies).

A cigarette contains enough poison in it to kill someone... if you took those chemicals and shot them directly into your heart. But that's not what people do. They smoke them and most of the poisons aren't actually absorbed via the lungs.

Cigarettes are bad for you, that's no question. But since it takes YEARS UPON YEARS for serious problems to develop in cigarette smokers, to say that by merely inhaling a single breath of secondhand smoke is essentially killing you is, for lack of a better word, retarded. It's sensationalism at its finest.

1 in every 8 people smokes, and as far as minorities go, that's a pretty big one! How can we protect the right of people to burn flags, but infringe on the rights of people to burn tobacco? How can we protect the right of people to poison the minds of others with racist epithets and white supremest remarks (publicly even), but infringe on the right of people to poison themselves privately?

Yeah yeah, the difference is that the other things I mentioned fall under freedom of expression, but maybe smokers are just expressing that they are cooler than the rest of us

Also, let me point out that private businesses can prevent the other things I mentioned... speech is not protected on private property. However, the smoking crusade is looking to make it so businesses can't chose whether or not people can smoke on their property. That's pretty fucked up right there... if the owner wants, he can kick you out for even carrying a Bible on the premises, but if you light a cigarette on the premises, he is required by law to kick you out (or at least your cigarette).

[Thorgrim]

inhaling second hand smoke is inhaling cancer causing agents...yes the more you do it, the more risky, but nothing is certain either way...you can smoke 10 packs a day everyday and not get cancer, and you can unhale a passing exhale of smoke and then find yourself with lung cancer

bottom line: it's a poison, and it's by people who not only chooose not to directly inhale it, but also by many who think they are safe from lung cancer by simply not directly inhaling it

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't see second-hand smoking as poisoning at all.
They smoke them and most of the poisons aren't actually absorbed via the lungs.

Cigarettes are bad for you, that's no question. But since it takes YEARS UPON YEARS for serious problems to develop in cigarette smokers, to say that by merely inhaling a single breath of secondhand smoke is essentially killing you is, for lack of a better word, retarded. It's sensationalism at its finest.

Your statements contain misinformation. Below is some information I got from the National Caner Institute all about second hand smoke.

Of the chemicals identified in secondhand smoke, more than 50 are carcinogens (substances that cause cancer), such as formaldehyde. Six other substances, including nicotine and carbon monoxide, interfere with normal cell development (2, 4). Some of the compounds present in secondhand smoke become carcinogenic only after they are activated by specific enzymes (proteins that control chemical reactions) in the body. After these compounds are activated, they can then become part of a cell’s DNA and may interfere with the normal growth of cells.

Secondhand smoke exposure is a known risk factor for lung cancer (1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke

Studies have shown that even small amounts of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful to people’s health. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure (7). Individuals can reduce their exposure to secondhand smoke by not allowing smoking in their home or car. Educational, clinical, and policy interventions have also been shown to reduce secondhand smoke exposure (9). Such policies include adoption of worksite restrictions, passage of clean indoor air laws, and enforcement of smoking restrictions in shared environments (9).

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

It wouldn't be that hard to never go to a smoking establishment in your life. You'd eat at home a lot, but it wouldn't be hard. People choose to go where there is smoking and then vote to ban it for their personal pleasure.

When you engage in behaviour that puts others at risk, youa re the one the should be making accomodations not everyone else. The idea that I should have avoid places because some people wwant to do something risky, that used to be acceptable, seems to me to be taking the concept of personal freedom to far.

Freedom for one, restricts another.

People are not planning smoking for personal pleasure, but because it is dangerous to them.

I am all for people putting whatever they want into thier bodies, but why should I have avoid going somewhere to eat because of it.

I am not against catering to smokers, though.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Your statements contain misinformation. Below is some information I got from the National Caner Institute all about second hand smoke.

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute

I was going to go through and point out where their references use poor sources of info, but wikipedia has a good list of misinformation on secondhand smoking that's been floating around since 1993, some of which is directly from what you quoted:

Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although most scientists and public health organizations support the view that passive smoking causes cancer and other disorders, this view has been the subject of dissent, notably publicised by Steven Milloy and the Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC). Criticism has focused on the position of the World Health Organization, on a decision of the United States District Court in 1998 (the Osteen decision) and on cohort studies by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat.

[edit] World Health Organization Report Controversy

Some criticism has focused on a 1998 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), which found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS."[72] The accompanying editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that this study, in combination with extensive earlier evidence, presented "an inescapable scientific conclusion... that ETS is a low-level lung carcinogen."[73]

Even before the journal article was published, reports had appeared in the popular media claiming that the IARC and WHO were witholding or manipulating the study results, which were claimed to exonerate passive smoking as a risk factor for cancer. Such reports appeared in the London Sunday Telegraph and The Economist, among other sources.[74][75][76][77] The WHO issued a press release condemning these reports as "false and misleading".[78]

A review of the circumstances surrounding the study and the ensuing controversy, published in The Lancet in 2000, detailed coordinated surveillance of the IARC study from its inception by Philip Morris and other tobacco companies, with the goal of analyzing and discrediting its findings. In the year 1994 alone, Philip Morris budgeted $2 million toward this IARC study, and an additional $4 million toward studies intended to discredit the IARC's conclusions.[79] A Philip Morris memo expressed the concern that "a down side to this [is] that our input could help them [the IARC] improve the quality of the study."[79] Philip Morris also considered exerting financial influence over the IARC, but rejected this option as impractical and instead focused on "encourag[ing] IARC invitations to other 'objective' scientists."[79]

Overall, the authors found that the controversy surrounding the IARC/WHO study was largely generated as part of a coordinated effort by the tobacco industry to undermine potentially harmful research findings.[79] The review also concluded that, if all possible misclassification biases were taken into account (and not just those put forward by the tobacco industry), the association between passive smoking and lung cancer may well have been significantly stronger than that found by the IARC study.[79]

[edit] The Osteen decision

In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking annually.[15] Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action, claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices.

United States District Court Judge William Osteen vacated this study in 1998, finding that the EPA had: 1) Publicly committed to a conclus